Readers' comments

A few days ago British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Pakistan is exporting terrorism to the neighboring countries and is not serious in fight against terrorism. If truth be told, Pakistan is the country in region which has served as a front line state in this so-called War Against Terrorism. Though it is very much clear, that this is not our War which we are fighting in the name of terrorism but the War which has been imposed on Pakistan since last one decade and unfortunately Pakistan has paid a very heavy price of being a neighboring country of Afghanistan. Pakistan is a country which has suffered immense losses in terms of Army personals and civilian causalities to such an extent that her own internal security is badly threatened. On one hand, we are raising protest as a nation and Foreign Office had summoned Britain's envoy in Islamabad following recent critical remarks by UK Prime Minister, on other hand a very shameful development in this regard is the recent visit of President Zardari to UK. Opposition leaders have strongly condemned his visit and ISI chief Lt Gen Shuja Pasha has cancelled a scheduled visit to Britain in protest against Prime Minister David Cameron's anti-Pakistani statement.
Such like propaganda against Pakistan by the British PM will go a long way and will definately prove a set back for bilateral realtions. I believe it’s a high time when Pakistan should reconsider her relations with the U.S. and Great Britain respectively.

"I, for one, am in no way qualified to make decisions on schooling, policing, etc."

Really? Why are you less competent than a politically appointed "specialist" whose only qualification is agreeing with its masters?

In America people keep a close eye on all local business they do not manage directly; our power cooperative does its own planning, but sends us reports with our dividends, and the PTA has oversight over the local school.
And when a local agency gets out of hand, we crush it.
Surely the British are capable of that, at least?

"I, for one, am in no way qualified to make decisions on schooling, policing, etc."

Really? Why are you less competent than a politically appointed "specialist" whose only qualification is agreeing with its masters?

In America people keep a close eye on all local business they do not manage directly; our power cooperative does its own planning, but sends us reports with our dividends, and the PTA has oversight over the local school.
And when a local agency gets out of hand, we crush it.
Surely the British are capable of that, at least?

I get where Cameron is going with this; but there has to be a limit. To overly decentralize will turn Britain into a tribal, more fragmented country. I mean, this will send Britain really back to basics: to the time of the Angles, Saxons, Celts, Jutes, and Picts battling for their city blocks.

Look, I am an educated person; I went to university. But I, for one, am in no way qualified to make decisions on schooling, policing, etc. I can bearly keep my lawn weed-free, how am I suppose to set up a school? Let's get real. This is the type of loonie policies that always damages the Tories.

Can you imagine a group of Big Society volunteers in the north side of a town opposing the building of [fill in the blank] that another group of Big Society volunteers in the south side of town support?

For all the reasons given here the project seems doomed -- yet it inspires a strange sense of hope, if only among a small minority. And surely for that reason the devolution of power should not be done stealthily. A sense of excitement is needed to overcome the torpor induced by years of overbearing government.

While the idea of scaling back the role and power of the state in people's lives is a welcome one after the years Labour meddling, Cameron & co. are forgetting one thing - British people hate being told what to do. No amount of school visits by the prime minister, or of lofty speeches by his team are going to persuade the bloody-minded Brits that they should become more civic-minded; in fact I rather suspect it will have the opposite effect. AlterEggo above is right - people actually have to care about things first.

The project in Liverpool is to get volunteers working in museums. Since the museums director Dr. Fleming has been talking about the likelihood of major losses, are they perhaps hoping that the people they sack will then come in and volunteer?

In the 1980s the Conservatives told us there was no such thing as society, in the 1990s they told us we should "get back to basics", now they are talking of the big society, at the same time as slashing funding for voluntary work.

The financial crisis taught us more and not less regulation is needed. I would love to see how a group of parents in full time employment are able take control of their child's school.

In the 1980s the Conservative government pulled funding, rolled back the state and hid under a pile of rocks, now they are doing the same, only difference they are pretending everything will sort itself out.

Are parents "desperate for more control over the schools system"? You seem to contradict yourself in the next paragraph: "put-upon parents zooming from their office grind to run their children’s school..."